1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.By those definitions, since April 2005, Cornell has repeatedly lied to the public regarding their Ivory-bill claims.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Very specifically, here are some examples of Cornell's deceptions, large and small:
1. Regarding the wingbeat frequency of the Luneau bird--
a) In Cornell's online Luneau video analysis, they state:
The bird in the Luneau video flies in a straight, direct “beeline” flight without changing its wingbeat frequency for 4.5 sec before disappearing among the trees.b) In their response to Sibley's commentary, Fitz et al also state:
The Luneau woodpecker flies with a wingbeat frequency of 8.6 Hz without undulation for more than 4 s.Both statements above are outright lies, since no one, including Cornell, can discern more than about one second of individual wingbeats in the Luneau video. More details are here.
2. The "photo montage" saga
In their response to Sibley's commentary, Cornell offered up a deceptive photo montage. A right-leaning tree in their original paper inexplicably becomes a left-leaning tree in their response; this completely nullifies the key "wrist-to-tailtip" measurement from their original paper. More details are here.
3. Cornell has repeatedly used deceptive "weasel wording" in an attempt to convince us that only a small fraction of the Big Woods has been searched.
An example is here (the bold font is mine):
The area defined as the Big Woods covers 550,000 acres and so far 13% of that (72,000 acres) has been systematically searched during the last two field seasons.The key weasel word is, of course, "systematically"--evidently, this only applies to areas that have been transect-searched. With this weasel wording, a square mile that has been thoroughly covered by ghillie-suited Cornell searchers, private searchers, hunters, remote cameras, ARUs, pilots wearing helmet-cams, etc etc may still be officially "unsearched".
4. In December '05, Ken Rosenberg went on NPR and played some ARU kent calls, claiming that they "may very likely be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker". Rosenberg failed to mention that several searchers reported hearing and seeing blue jays making sounds very much like this in this area. More details here.
5. Ron Rohrbaugh publicly claimed that Cornell's alleged Ivory-bill sightings were "very top-quality sightings". That description is simply preposterous.
6. There are major inconsistencies in various Cornell retellings of Gene Sparling's alleged IBWO sighting. Details are here.
7. In Cornell's response to Sibley's paper, they stated (the bold font is mine):
After studying the evidence at length, the Bird Records Committee of the Arkansas Audubon Society voted unanimously to accept the documentation of ivory-billed woodpecker.The vote was actually 4-1. Mike Mlodinow dissented.
8. There are major discrepancies in various Cornell stories about the timing of their original Science paper acceptance and an alleged leak on a "nation-wide listserv".
For example, in various places, Cornell told us that their original Science paper was accepted on April 25, April 26, and April 27, 2005. More details are here.